Slashdot Mirror
Chile First To Approve Net Neutrality Law
Sir Mal Fet writes "Chile has become the first country in the world to approve, by 100 votes in favor and one abstention, a law guaranteeing net neutrality (Google translation; Spanish original). The law states [submitter's translation]: 'No [ISP] can block, interfere with, discriminate, hinder, nor restrict the right of any Internet user of using, send, receive or offer any content, application, or legitimate service through the Internet, as well as any activity or legitimate use conducted through the Internet.' The law also has articles that force ISPs to provide parental control tools, clarify contracts, guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever. This is a major advance in the legislation of the country regarding the Web, when until last year almost anything that was performed online was considered illegal."
The "send" part eludes most U.S. discussions. Most major ISPs in the US block many outgoing ports to prevent you from running a server. What I do with my bandwidth is my business thank you very much, including serving up HTML.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
What Chile does: (what looks like) Decent Net Neutrality
What America does: Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It's not actually law yet. The last sentence of TFA states (my translation)
The Chamber of Deputies sent the present bill to the Executive so that it might comment or proceed to promulgating it as a Law of the Republic.
However, the Executive are quoted earlier as approving of it, so this should be a formality.
"guarantee users' privacy and safety when surfing, and forbids them to restrict any liberty whatsoever"
These two conflict. establishing privacy and safety require the users behavior and software be carefully configured and updated, and that impedes on ones liberty to have absolute control over their own behavior and property.
"No [ISP] can block... legitimate use conducted through the Internet."
Anybody else see the problem here?
The article states that the ISP can't restrict "legitimate service through the Internet", but doesn't that mean they can restrict "unlawful" activities? So how is this really different from what other western countries like Australia is trying to do where officially they say they are doing it to restrict illegal activities like child pornography or bit-torrent (which politicians still don't seem to understand is not illegal by itself)?
I looked at the translation of the bill and it appears to be a one page bill. I only skimmed it, but I can support such a bill. There's no place to hide things in it. Unlike the "net neutrality" bills that have been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So you are saying that the people in areas with 1-2 ISPs will be able to switch to a different ISP that doesn't restrict traffic? Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing. ISPs will do the same exact thing. Comcast goes, hey Wave Broadband is filtering out Torrents, we are gonna do it too to save money, people can complain but where they gonna go?
I know that most people here are internet techies, but why do most of you not understand that net neutrality is a BAD thing.
Because we're actual techies, i.e. people who pay attention to what's actually going on in the tech world, as opposed to people who have swallowed the corporate "we have to be able to abuse our customers so we can provide service for our customers!" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Totally agreed. Any of you foolish libertarians who believe in "free markets" should recognize that Telecom/Cable has basically never been "free". It's been a (somewhat regulated) monopoly at local levels since pretty much day one. Those who would revoke those regulations without forcing open the market (ie, forcing resale of bandwidth/service etc) are basically allowing the telecoms to have their cake and eat it too. Net Neutrality is an attempt at strengthening regulations. In the absence of a free market, I'm all for it.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Net neutrality doesn't prevent charging based on usage (which is what they should be doing). Note that that is different than charging based on sites accessed or protocols used. ISPs should not be degrading P2P traffic, or restricting access to sites, what they should be doing is charging users based on their consumption.
att DSL lets you have them!them
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
If net neutrality was implemented it WILL WITH CERTAINTY increase internet costs for all users
Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?
And it's not just about peer2peer tampering. It's about all traffic shaping - streaming videos, playing video games, etc. Some of us would like to have unrestricted access. We already put up with the bandwidth issues during high traffic times - but you'll still be shaped in low traffic times. (Which, we might add, there is more low and mid-low traffic times then there are high and mid-high traffic times).
You mention how Net Neutrality will offer more choices (those with tampering and those without). Currently, for most people, there are two options, Suck and suck harder.
How could more options be worse?
on everything, including you freedom
when someone tries to block child pornography, for example, you are not witnessing some horrible slippery slope to fascism. no, really. to believe so is to be a hysterical twit and absolutely no credit whatsoever to an authentic fight for freedom
"Anybody else see the problem here?"
no, not at all. are you a paranoid schizophrenic?
the fight for freedom must be patient, shrewd, and wise. not a bunch of halfcocked lightweights spazzing out at every wisp of smoke
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, you're saying that the solution to having too much regulation in a market, (telcom) is to install more regulation? How progressive of you.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Troll
Bu bu but, General Pinochet... You're supposed to be dead!!
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I'm of the opinion one of the biggest problems with 1st world elections is popular vote. Instead of voting for the person you want you should get a stack of votes of varying point values to drop on multiple candidates you like the best (can't go all on 1) that way you come up with a vote against system. If voters for person A hate person B and voters for person B hate person A, yet nobody really hates C even though he's not really in the spotlight, he has a better chance of winning that way. The rabid division down the middle of a party system is killing most first world nations.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I agree:
The problem is not neutrality. The problem is the monopoly (or duopoly) that government granted these businesses. It's equivalent to if government suddenly announced, "You will no longer have a choice in grocery stores. Only Comcast Grocery will be allowed to operate within this city." Don't be surprised if the cost of food doubles or even triples as a result (no instantly but over a time).
I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."
I agree with the concept, but how exactly do you compete with another company offering unlimited downloads? Much like web hosting, there's the small print agreement that says you can only download/host a 'reasonable' amount, but most consumers are going to go for the unlimited package.
Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same? Its not collusion but its price fixing.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Price fixing is just one of many behaviors bundled under the name "collusion."
What you're griping about is the market's perfectly legal tendancy to play follow the leader on pricing.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And good luck to your country! ;-) I like Chilean wines anyway, maybe I should look into moving there!
Paul B.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm
Read from the bottom up for chronological order, which goes roughly like this:
Pre election: Allende may align himself with the Communists, so prepare for divestment and possible action if he's elected. We cannot tolerate any example of an OAS country independent and working with Russia or Cuba, or in any way harming US interests.
Post election: Now that Allende has been elected, here are the options for getting rid of him. Propaganda campaigns have already begun.
Post assassination: "Chile's coup d'etat was close to perfect."
Post political executions: This telegram, written by Ambassador Popper and directed to the U.S. Secretary of State, reports on a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State Jack Kubisch, and Chile's foreign minister General Huerta on the controversy over two U.S. citizens--Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi--executed by the military after the coup. Kubisch notes that he is raising this issue "in the context of the need to be careful to keep relatively small issues in our relationship from making our cooperation more difficult."
Allende, who was the elected president of Chile before the coup, gave a final speech while British-made jets dropped bombs on the presidential palace on 9/11/73:
My friends,
Surely this will be the last opportunity for me to address you. The Air Force has bombed the antennas of Radio Magallanes.
My words do not have bitterness but disappointment. May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath: soldiers of Chile, titular commanders in chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself Commander of the Navy, and Mr. Mendoza, the despicable general who only yesterday pledged his fidelity and loyalty to the Government, and who also has appointed himself Chief of the Carabineros [paramilitary police]...
Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again and free men will walk through them to construct a better society.
Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!
These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason. --Salvador Allende
And we apologize for that.
Most techies don't understand that the internet is a negative right, not a positive one. No one owes you internet, you simply have the right to pursue it.
Maybe not Stateside, but the folks over in Finland now have a legal right to 1Mb Broadband Internet access.
I'm not sure that I agree that direct legislation is the right answer here, but it's hard to deny that the average person doesn't have the same ability to choose providers of broadband hard-wired Internet access as they do to choose gas stations, supermarkets, or brands of automobile.
If the government really wants to see innovation and choice in customer access to the Internet/Voice and Video communication/etc..., they should seriously consider how they're allocating spectrum and make sure that they're setting up a market where small companies can jump into the market and provide novel services (such as symmetric up/down pipes), should (read: when) the larger companies drag their heels.
coding is life
Well, that's easy to solve: The ISP sends all traffic to a government computer which analyzes the content and tells the ISP what to filter out.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. the cable companies have government-mandated local monopolies; there is no choice available.
2. Just because access to the internet in the US is a negative right, doesn't mean it has to stay the way. Changing times requires changes in the law, otherwise we could have stuck with the book of Leviticus and left it at that.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Chile isn't exactly a have-not or third world country. Its HDI ranking is just a touch below G8 average; and its GINI is one slot below the US, admittedly three slots below the "civilized world", as it were.
I think, to a degree, the latin influence is slightly more 'let it be' than the anglo-germanic 'let it be as I say'. Ireland is always the spoiler with its 'aye, we'll do that' which really means 'if it makes you shut up, we'll agree and never get around to it'.....
A couple of years, and a better world cup finish, might see Chili really step into the light, especially as some of the old guard grow dimmer, both literally and figuratively.
With the puppet dictatorships and their bastard overlords temporarily banished, Chili and other South American Countries finally have a chance to strut their stuff. It is nice that they are demonstrating how backwards the so-called first world is. As much as I desire a world without her, I do hope Thatcher lives to see the antithesis of her efforts.
You don't consume internet access, you consume content. Since ISPs don't provide content, they shouldn't charge based on "usage" but how fast you want to go. The same amount of bits will traverse the network no matter what.
No, the problem with not enough competition in the market is to create more. Remember: a completely unregulated market will tend to coalesce into a monopoly or cartel fairly shortly. The goal of regulation is to keep the markets competitive. You know, you "free market" zealots should try going to somewhere that has no regulation whatsoever (like say, Sierra Leone) and see how far your ideals take you.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
We've got fairly sane copyright legislation from Brazil recently too. South America has been tooling under European and then American hegemony ever since the Spanish conquistadors. Brazil was the country that ensured sane prices for aids medications throughout the world by threatening to break American patents. China otoh does extreme long term harm by paying lip service while ignoring all the content. We'll all have better lives if South American, India, and Eastern Europe replace China for any given economic activity currently outsourced to China.
Btw : Did you ever try sleeping with a Spanish woman? You know they're currently still kinda in their 70s after their 60s after their dictator Franko died, right? I'm just saying, if I had any influence over my boss for his choice of outsourcing destinations, then I'd be mentioning Chile.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I don't know where you live, but in Ohio I'm reasonably sure cities are not allowed to sign exclusive franchises with a particular vendor.
I recall from my time on the technology advisory board in Fairborn, OH that our franchise agreement was not exclusive and at no time was it ever exclusive. Anyone, if they saw fit, could offer cable television, Internet access, etc. Guess how many cable companies we had? One. No one wanted to put in tons of money in infrastructure to compete against an already entrenched incumbent.
Now you might actually have a government-granted monopoly in your jurisdiction. I don't know. I do know that where I currently live (Columbus, OH) I have two choices for cable -- Insight and WOW. And let me tell you the prices aren't that much better.
If you really want a free market, you'll need the government to own the infrastructure and allow anyone to provide service over that infrastructure. It could work the same way dial-up worked. AT&T owned the lines, but you could get your access from whomever you want. Cable television, Internet, etc. should be the same way.
Odd, right now, most of the country has many options for internet access, all heavily tampered with. Almost all the exceptions I've seen have been business class service, and even some of those are heavily tampered with. And in many places, you can't get business class service at a residence. Show me all those options and I'll stop laughing at your naïveté. As long as your only options are all tampered with, losing all those "options" in favor of unfettered access seems like a pretty clear improvement.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The government can run 50-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then lease each of those lines to a different company. The customers would be able to choose among multiple ISPs: Comcast, Cox, Time-warner, AppleTV, Verizon, Virgin, Mom&Pop Cable, whatever. If one ISP sucks or blocks a website you want, just switch to a different ISP. You'd have upto 50 to choose from.
Why would 50 ISPs enter a small rural or suburban market of say 500 households - something to be split 50 ways?
There is no profit in that for anyone.
Why should the government commit to such a ridiculously out-sized investment in infrastructure?
With net neutrality you only have one option for internet access: untampered internet.
Without net neutrality you have to choose your place of residence based on ISP availability :) :)
- Which is not going to happen... Arguments not necessary
It's simply not profitable for multiple ISPs to deliver internet to the same residence...
Here in Denmark, power supply companies decided to dig up half the country to bury fiber cables... This is nice, and they provide great cheap service and fast internet, but EVERY single company doing this failing because they're competing against copper cables that have already been paid for...
Last I heard one of the fiber networks were being bought up, by big copper cable network owner...
Your packets arrive at the same time as any other service, not "belling" p2p at set times.
No slowing, hidden caps on some ports ect.
Privacy would protect your usage logs, name, maybe data in transit from a Google like collection and storage when exposed.
You have the liberty to not use the net, use a consumer account, server quality account or any other isp offering at any price you like with any fine print.
Just your details are safe from 3rd parties, your packets will not be slowed.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sorry, but your basic premise is completely wrong. There's a company here in Canada called "Acanac" which provides cheaper DSL access than either of the two giants (one is a phone company, the other a cable company). Acanac buys their access in bulk from the phone company, and resells it to customers at a lower price. They've always offered "untampered", unlimited access. A couple years ago, the phone company started not only filtering the bandwidth of their own customers, but also the bulk-traffic which they were selling to smaller ISP's. What did Acanac do? .... *drumroll* .....
They set up a tunnel for their customers to use in order to bypass the filtering.
Yep, not only do they offer a lower price .... not only do they not care about how much traffic their customers use .... but they've gone out of their way to ensure that their customers can get the full speed they've been promised, even though the limitations being introduced were caused by a different company.
And you're trying to tell me that I'll be able to get better rates from allowing the big companies to do what they please? You're trying to tell me that those evil "p2p" guys are responsible for massive cost increases? Please. You're just repeating the same nonsense that the major ISP's have been spewing for the last few years, and it doesn't sound any more convincing coming from you.
First, there was Ecuador being a badass and throwing their president out for trying to violate the constitution.
Then Brazil barring claiming copyright on public domain.
Now Chile. Who would have thought that South America would be leading the charge for freedom and consumer rights in the digital age?
Yea, that would be great - a nation run by wallflowers. What could go wrong?
Key weasel word inserted: legitimate.
Laws (or even worse regulations) listing what content is "legitimate" soon to follow. This is not a victory, it's the first step to an erosion of freedom.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
when someone consumes child pornography, they drive the creation of pornography
why do paparazzi follow celebrities around? because their photos get cash, to be put in media to be bought, because those photos appeal to someone
if some dude makes some photos of sex with children, he is able to get money for that, because a marketplace exists for the consumption of that media
therefore destruction of that marketplace is a perfectly valid way to fight child pornography, because if that dude can't sell his pictures, he's disinclined to make them
when you possess child pornography, when you distribute it, you are helping to feed a criminal activity, and you should be punished
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Wow, Chile must have a great educational system if every non-native English speaker writes English "properly". And you're very clever to catch him in such an obvious lie: he doesn't write English well, clearly he can't be Chilean!
It's not a "government granted" monopoly; that was outlawed in the 90s. The problem is that broadband is a natural monopoly: there is a huge fixed cost in infrastructure to run cables to every home, which means there's only room for 1 or 2 stable players in a region, and the startup costs for any new players make it cost-prohibitive to set up a competitor. Combine this with rampant consolidation under the corporate-friendly Bush administration, and you have single players holding each region hostage, with not enough incentive to move into other regions to compete with entrenched de-facto monopolies.
There are two solutions to this:
1) Municipal broadband: get the government to foot the startup costs. This basically results in a different de-facto monopoly (the muni broadband) in a few years, though one which is probably more likely to at least listen to its customers.
2) Mandated line sharing. This is the solution that Congress came up with for the telcos back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. What it amounts to is that broadband providers with existing infrastructure are required to make their lines available at-cost to anyone who wants to start up a business to compete with them. It's worked in countries around the world with both denser and less dense populations to drastically lower broadband prices and improve service and speed--every country that has leapfrogged us in the last decade has done something similar--so naturally the broadband providers (and their paid Congressional shills) are fighting tooth and nail against it. And they're winning, because the Democrats are too weak-willed to put their foot down.
Just sayin'.
expandfairuse.org
Thats an economical fallacy. Companies always try to get the most profit. If one raises prices the other can move just below it because it will still be the best option. This has nothing to do with price fixing or price gouging. If there really was obsene profit, more competition would enter the market.
Did it occur to you that you are in a minority? Internet is cheap because the majority of users use very little. The claim that you would pay more means nothing. If there were enough people willing to pay more, don't you think the market would serve this need and take your money? Of course they would. If net neutrality was a problem for a significant amount of people, it would be feasable to run an ISP that specifically promoted itself as being unrestricted, no such company exists because its not profitable. By definition forcing such companies to adopt such a stance it MUST riase the price of the internet. There is not getting around this economic fact that net neutrality will force ISPs to provide a service they would otherwise not bother to provide. Net neutrality provides less options, as it adds regulation. No net neutraility is the most options, as it is unregulated.
The "unlimited" one would either be slower or more costly. Bandwidth is a limited resource... to keep speeds up they need to purchase more of it, and thus raise their rates, or not purchase more and let the speed suffer.
Well that isn't true: if I can download content at speed X and I do it at 100% capacity 24/7 for a year and you can download content at speed X/2 and you do it 100% capacity 24/7 for a year you will have downloaded half as much as I have.
Yea, that would be great - a nation run by wallflowers. What could go wrong?
At least it would be a different set of things going wrong than we've had the past hundred years or so.
"Civilized" Wow... you make it sound as the rest of the country that is not a G8 is still using axes to cut meat. Anyway, what u say is right. Not only my country but also many other countries. Is nice to see someone who still remembers Margaret as i do. Please, read my long comment i posted in the "Freedom" talking-mixind-law-news-thing.
If you don't understand why more gas companies can't enter the market, then god help you. Most gas companies make money hand over fist, moreso then other markets, so you would think more gas companies would be sprouting up all the time until they were equal to what other markets make in profits.
No, collusion is an agreement, meaning they have to meet and "agree" to terms. Its price fixing in that a Gas Company can increase the cost of gasoline, a largely inelastic good and they know that the other gas companies will set it equal to their price. So in the end, you get consumers paying a higher price then what is required for a good. Remember a couple of years ago when gas jumped up by almost 80% yet consumer use in the US dropped only 5%? That means the gas companies can get away with a lot and they know it.
And pray tell, how will they know what data must be protected without inspecting it first?
Look, it's simple -> liberty is the freedom to send whatever packets I want to wherever I want. If those packets have my social security number, hat size and address, so be it. They're my packets. It's not your job to know that any given packet I send is "private" or "safe".
You seem to think that there's a magical "private" or "unsafe" flag in the TCP/IP spec. There isn't.
I wouldn't call the lack of a rabid crowd of foaming at the mouth zealots behind a candidate a bad thing. When camps A and B call each other idiots, usually they're both right. The fact the least objectionable guy getting votes on the other hand (remember - the real wall flowers aren't getting any of the votes) isn't getting hated on could be a good thing.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Have you ever noticed how when one gas station raises their prices, the one directly across the street raises theirs to the same?
Actually, no. I've never seen this happen in my life (I'm 35 and live in Southern California). Even when I pointed out to a friend that the two gas stations across the street from each other had prices that were several cents apart, the response I got was "Well, the cheaper one will raise their prices soon". That never happened.
I have however noticed that when the price per barrel goes up (or down) significantly (more than a dollar or two) that the price at the pump goes up. I have yet to see two gas stations across the street from each other raise the prices to the same exact price.
And actually, ISPs don't do the same thing. I just talked to a coworker that lives in Tennessee. She simply mentioned switching service from Charter to another company (several have shown up in her area) and they reduced her price and added two channels to her lineup. She gets 15 meg downstream for $30 per month (Time Warner charges me $50 for 10 meg).
The point is that services are becoming faster and cheaper everyday. If Comcast or somebody else wants to start blocking certain services, the local phone company that probably provides FiOS will be more than happy to serve them. It may not be everywhere yet, but services are expanding at a pretty rapid pace. Just look at AT&T with their recent switch to tiered pricing for 3G service. I notice Verizon has not followed suit (they'll have tiered pricing for LTE, but they have unlimited packages for 3G). So don't try to say that when one company does it, their competitor follows suit. Competitors are doing nothing of the sort.
your name
I know you from somewhere, and I think I know where. I'm becoming a fan.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Did it ever occur to you that some of us would be willing to pay more for untampered internet?
So get a business account and have all the untampered access you want. The problem is that you say you're willing to pay more, but the moment someone mentions getting a business account (which is what the pricing will end up being for the increased access if "net neutrality" ever does pass) you flip out and say "I shouldn't have to!"
You can have what you want right now, you're just not willing to pay for it (even though you say you are). Or you're not willing to pay what the ISP is charging. Considering that 10 years ago having much more than a megabit connection to your house would have been unheard of for most people, I think you're all a bunch of whiney brats that want something for nothing.
I remember when Comcast was $30. That wasn't great but it was reasonable. Now it would cost me $80 ($85 with tax) to get equivalent service to what I had in 1997. They get away with it because they have a government-granted monopoly.
Really? You really had over 500 channels when Comcast was $30? And they were all digital with a ton of HD content and all kinds of on-demand content as well? And you had a DVR to pause, rewind, and record live television? I know Comcast has lousy customer service, but something tells me you're full of shit.
I'm pretty sure you can get the really cheap Comcast service if you want it, but you probably don't want to do without all the extras. Or you could get a $20 digital antenna and enjoy free OTA digital and HD content. But I bet you like the DVR. Yeah, I'm sure the $85 service is really equivalent to what was available in 1997.
Most people accept that the NSA goes fishing, they do not accept that a .com or hacker gets a free pass. .com is caught with your data on their devices. .coms and other data thief issues.
The privacy part would kick in as an extra layer of legal protection if a hacker or
Your packets in transit will be treated the same as p2p, VOIP, MS, Apple, Google, local blog ie moving around the net. This law prevents a greedy telco from degrading the service you paid for in your contract and might add a few extra years to hackers,
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sure, it would restrict their options, but if the law is interpreted as you suggest that this would likely lead to attempts to notify the customer. Also, restricting liberty can be interpreted to being different to restricting speeds and so on - cutting down speeds and notifying the customer to fix their computer is most certainly annoying (and has it's own problems), but could fall within a legal solution to the dilemma - force the customer to fix the infected PC if they want their speed back.
Just a disclaimer, I don't personally believe in the solution that I offered. I'm just saying that there doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict.
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
sorry, that snide comment was meant to deride the Americans. Its a national pass time in Canada. Some of my best friends use axes to cut meat.
You know that "having a business account" isn't enough right? With most ISP's, you can't get a proper business line to run into a residential house.
So what, I have to lease a building in the industrial sector to get a business line? there is a point where it becomes unpractical.
UF?
Help me out here, name me a monopoly that isn't brought about by government regulation, like rail, telcom, power, copyright, etc...
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Well I hope it wasnt Arco that you were comparing to another gas station, because Arco is cheaper because they charge you for using your Debit card. Which is funny because they provide inferior gas yet the total price is about the same.
I dont know about you, but I live in an area where if you want decent internet, you are forced into getting Comcast, and this is a college town. The best alternative is DSL that only runs about 2MB download compared to the 30MB I get from Comcast. So I essentially have zero choice when it comes to switching. If Comcast chooses to start throttling Torrents again, I essentially end up in the exact same position switching to the other ISP. And with the way ISPs are set up in this country, I am certain that others would run into similar problems across the country.
Its not an accurate representation comparing ISPs to wireless cell phone providers since wireless cell phone providers are much more heavily regulated by the FCC, something that should be done for the ISPs.
but, like much of the rest of your argument, you project assumptions without any genuine logic
murder images are of interest to anyone with a macabre personality. but child pornography is of no interest to anyone except pedophiles
i agree with you in one respect: the exchange of images and drawings shouldn't be so much shut down... as left open, and baited and tracked. why? for the purpose of catching pedophiles
i'm sorry, but pedophilia is real. i'm not getting in the argument about sex with a physically mature (but mentally immature) 15 year old or sex between a 14 year old and a 15 year old... i'm talking about adults with a sexual desire for prepubescent children... i hope that shuts down your red herring arguments i already see coming
homosexuality is a natural modification of desire, but it is harmless, because it occurs between consenting adults. pedophilia is the same: a natural deformation of normal sexual cues such that the wrong cues are seen as arousing. impossible to act on because it is logically impossible for a child to act with INFORMED consent in a sexual scenario with an adult. a pedophile can only do one thing: damage children psychologically. and can one live their entire lives with their sexual inclinations permanently locked up? can we trust that they can keep their desires locked up?
so being a pedophile is sort of an innate tragic sentence, like being born with cystic fibrosis or huntington's disease: you are genetically endowed with a life-deforming handicap. its not anyone's fault, but it is what it is: a desire that renders someone incompatible with society
cutting off their balls doesn't work. jail time doesn't work (when you let them out, they are still pedophilies: you can't be cured of an innate desire), so anyone with a sexual desire towards children is a time bomb waiting to go off
i for one wish that we could just round these tragically deformed people up and send them to some antarctic island
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The problem is the word "guarantee". They cannot guarantee my privacy from third parties unless they violate my liberty. If I want to give my data to a .com, and they have it on their devices, that's my own decision. Unless the ISP can actually decide, packet by packet, what is "private" data for me, they simply cannot guarantee anything. The only way they could decide, packet by packet, what is "private" data, would be to inspect every packet I sent, and to be able to recognize my private data.
Now, perhaps the translation is a bit off, and the word "guarantee" wasn't properly used. But the essence of liberty includes the liberty to be unsafe and unprivate.
no. the law doesn't say "legitimate", it says legal, as in "not forbidden by any other law of the nation".
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
"May not limit the right of a user to enter or use any class of instruments, devices or appliances on the network, provided they [...] do not [...] harm [...] service quality."
That isn't a catch, it totally invalidates the entire thing. That is precisely the justification being used. Viz: "We can't allow you to use BitTorrent or other high data volume services because they harm service quality for other users."
This isn't a net neutrality law but a net neutrality except for services that don't deserve neutrality law.
LOL, you are completely mistaken, things like power companies were regulated because they became monopolies. In fact, its government regulation forcing power companies to lease their lines out that is what creates competition in the market.
Exactly. Many moons ago. I drop by on rare occasions but for the most part I'm gone.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Think of it as a paper trail. They should not sell your home address, web surfing details ect to other parties nor degrade your packets within their (your isp's) network.
After that as you say, the data is on the 'net' but your now covered for that first hop from efforts to degrade P2P, VOIP ect.
This law will not stop any good parts of been with an isp, just provide a legal remedy if your data stolen or sold with out your consent.
You also had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm with deep packet inspection to examine traffic - this law might just make efforts like that be opt in.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Right. Because when someone is punching you in the face, it's a real relief to have them kick you in the balls instead.
LOL, you seem to think that they became monopolies without government assistance?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Of course they had government assistance, do you know expensive it is to start up a power company? Prohibitively high. Even if they didn't help them, they would have become monopolies anyway. Its called economies of scale, and for power generation and distribution, it will always be more efficient to have one producer. Unless of course you want there to be 8 poles at every location where there is one now.
You are partially right in that the government should handle certain infrastructure, but instated of just taking over the distribution lines they regulate everything. Distribution an arguably good idea for government regulation and or total control like highways. Generation should have minimal regulation.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Remember Enron? When they purposely closed down their power plants to make it seem like the system was over capacity as an excuse to raise rates? That is what deregulation got you.
Market actors that can only be in business by government permission are not deregulated. When one needs a bureaucrats permission to compete, one is not free to compete.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Well then I guess that no business is free to compete since they all need government permission in the form of Business Licenses and such.
Right. Because when someone is punching you in the face, it's a real relief to have them kick you in the balls instead.
Reverse it and it is true. When someone's been kicking you in the nuts for a few hours, it IS a relief when they punch you in the face instead.
Right now the law says downloading an mp3 is illegitimate, which I think is wrong.
I think you're too trusting of the law. Much too trusting.
expandfairuse.org